In re Whitman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Whitman

185 A.D. 571, 172 N.Y.S. 748, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6695

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 185 A.D. 571 (In re Whitman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Whitman, 185 A.D. 571, 172 N.Y.S. 748, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We are of opinion that the court was not authorized to order a mandamus for a recanvass. But upon the application in question the court was confined to a determination whether the application justified an order That the void, wholly blank and protested ballots be brought into court that the court could thereupon -determine whether any of such ballots were canvassed improperly with respect to the applicant, to the end that a mandamus with specific instructions for the recanvass should issue. We are of opinion that the allegation of the moving affidavit was sufficient to justify an order that such ballots be brought into court, but that the order should have ended there. Therefore, the order should be amended accordingly and should be further amended by vacation of the stay in accord with the consent in open court, without prejudice, however, to a future application therefor.

As thus modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Putnam, Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ., concurred.

Order modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

We are of opinion that the court was not authorized to order a mandamus for a recanvass. But upon the application in question the court was confined to a determination whether the application justified an order That the void, wholly blank and protested ballots be brought into court that the court could thereupon -determine whether any of such ballots were canvassed improperly with respect to the applicant, to the end that a mandamus with specific instructions for the recanvass should issue. We are of opinion that the allegation of the moving affidavit was sufficient to justify an order that such ballots be brought into court, but that the order should have ended there. Therefore, the order should be amended accordingly and should be further amended by vacation of the stay in accord with the consent in open court, without prejudice, however, to a future application therefor.

As thus modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Putnam, Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ., concurred.

Order modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D. 571, 172 N.Y.S. 748, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-whitman-nyappdiv-1918.